One could argue that it means you can't review that there WAS a penalty, but you should be able to review the location of the penalty, as it relates to the score. At least, that should be the intent of the rule, but it's not the explicit letter of the rule. However, there is also 12-3-6:

Limitations on Reviewable PlaysARTICLE 6. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable. However,the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving thegame clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that arenot specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c and d, 12-3-4-band 12-3-5-a).

The reviewable fowls are illegal forward passes (beyond the neutral zone) or forward handoffs and illegal participation. One should be able to argue that the clear evidence that he was at the 4 yard line should be an "egregious error". Again, arguing intent not letter of the rule.

One could argue that it means you can't review that there WAS a penalty, but you should be able to review the location of the penalty, as it relates to the score. At least, that should be the intent of the rule, but it's not the explicit letter of the rule.

I think I see where they're getting it. If a grounding penalty isn't reviewable (and I think that's the case), then a safety based on grounding isn't reviewable either.

One could argue that it means you can't review that there WAS a penalty, but you should be able to review the location of the penalty, as it relates to the score. At least, that should be the intent of the rule, but it's not the explicit letter of the rule.

I think I see where they're getting it. If a grounding penalty isn't reviewable (and I think that's the case), then a safety based on grounding isn't reviewable either.

That being said, everybody is pointing at the referee, but rest assured that the line judge (and possibly linesman as well) is getting chewed out for that one too.

One could argue that it means you can't review that there WAS a penalty, but you should be able to review the location of the penalty, as it relates to the score. At least, that should be the intent of the rule, but it's not the explicit letter of the rule.

I think I see where they're getting it. If a grounding penalty isn't reviewable (and I think that's the case), then a safety based on grounding isn't reviewable either.

That being said, everybody is pointing at the referee, but rest assured that the line judge (and possibly linesman as well) is getting chewed out for that one too.

If half the crew didn't see that he was an extra-special kind of wrong on this one, they're not fit to ref another game. I know that not all officials are watching that area of the field, but at least 2 or 3 should have told him that he was wrong before safety was officially called.

Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.

Shame Us:Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.

Olympic Trolling Judge:Who wants to bet that this is gonna lead to some changes in the rulebook over the offseason?

(Or at least some changes in the MAC officiating roster.)

sure, i was at the music city bowl that one year when UT lost famously to UNC because a penalty on UNC gave them time on the clock - just enough to score

they decided it wasn't fair for a team to get a penalty and benefit from it in that scenario, so the new rule was basically that any penalty under 2 minutes leads to a clock run-off of 10 seconds just to discourage that kind of scenario from happening again

it is a sport after all, not a bureaucracy, it's okay to say "that rule needs to be changed"

Olympic Trolling Judge:Who wants to bet that this is gonna lead to some changes in the rulebook over the offseason?

(Or at least some changes in the MAC officiating roster.)

It'll result in a change in the officials roster because it was such a blatant missed call.

However, it may only result in a clarification in the case book that the location of a foul, as it relates to a score, may be reviewable, but not the foul itself -- mostly because I don't see that expressly forbidden by the rules, but not explicitly included either.

Though it may be hard to believe, refs go over every game they ref, and they mark down every play they get wrong. These games are also reviewed by the officiating board. This ref is gonna see some consequences for such a blatant missed call. My father is an NCAA football ref (though not division 1), and he gets almost as riled up over blatant bad calls as fans do. Though he's also the first to defend a refs for a no-call that many people feel should have been called. It's always interesting watching games with him and getting his viewpoint on things.

Uh, yeah. It's great to be here, Ref. Um.. listen, I just wanted to know, um.. are you totally blind, or just legally blind.. uh.. so that, you know, you can make out shapes and degrees of light, you know, that kind of thing?

Shame Us:Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.

Only if the original team agreed to fumble the return of the safety punt. That intentional grounding was going to make it like 4th-and-27 from their own 4. Giving away a safety in return would give them a fresh set of downs in a much better part of the field.

IAmRight:Shame Us: Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.

Only if the original team agreed to fumble the return of the safety punt. That intentional grounding was going to make it like 4th-and-27 from their own 4. Giving away a safety in return would give them a fresh set of downs in a much better part of the field.

Fair enough. IDK if we have any idea what the score was at the time either. May not have made any kind of difference. If it's in the articel, pardon me. Deadspin is blocked at work.

Shame Us:Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.

buckeyebrain:Shame Us: Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.

Shame Us:IAmRight: Shame Us: Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.

Only if the original team agreed to fumble the return of the safety punt. That intentional grounding was going to make it like 4th-and-27 from their own 4. Giving away a safety in return would give them a fresh set of downs in a much better part of the field.

Fair enough. IDK if we have any idea what the score was at the time either. May not have made any kind of difference. If it's in the articel, pardon me. Deadspin is blocked at work.

7-3 Buffalo at the time, so it was close at that point. But considering the final 30-3 score, I'm inclined to believe it didn't matter, just a hilarious footnote to the game.

So... he rules *both* intentional grounding *and* a safety? Unless that QB is Reed Richards or Stretch Armstrong, the safety call should have gotten the old "WTF" from the other officials on the field. That whole crew needs to be pulled and re-trained.

Donnchadha:However,the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving thegame clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that arenot specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c and d, 12-3-4-band 12-3-5-a).

I like that rule, do you know how long it has existed? It would've been nice to reverse the unfair catch from a few years ago.

The #1 goal of the officiating crew, including the replay official, should be that the game is called fairly. If that means reversing an obvious mistake that isn't supposed to be reviewable, so be it.

Twigz221:Though it may be hard to believe, refs go over every game they ref, and they mark down every play they get wrong. These games are also reviewed by the officiating board. This ref is gonna see some consequences for such a blatant missed call. My father is an NCAA football ref (though not division 1), and he gets almost as riled up over blatant bad calls as fans do. Though he's also the first to defend a refs for a no-call that many people feel should have been called. It's always interesting watching games with him and getting his viewpoint on things.

I keep hearing this, yet time and again I see college football and basketball refs screw up royally only to be back on the field or court the next game (much less getting reassigned or fired). As the Donoghy incident revealed, much of officiating is still a good-ole-boy-friend-of-a-friend racket even at this level. They cover for each other.

One could argue that it means you can't review that there WAS a penalty, but you should be able to review the location of the penalty, as it relates to the score. At least, that should be the intent of the rule, but it's not the explicit letter of the rule.

I think I see where they're getting it. If a grounding penalty isn't reviewable (and I think that's the case), then a safety based on grounding isn't reviewable either.

Except that grounding is reviewable, at least to determine whether the ball crossed the line (I don't believe the pocket is reviewable). And they can obviously review where a player was when he threw the ball, re: illegal forward pass. I really don't see why they couldn't review this here.

Either way, I expect we'll see this play become explicitly reviewable next year, especially since it's a scoring play.

ClavellBCMI:So... he rules *both* intentional grounding *and* a safety? Unless that QB is Reed Richards or Stretch Armstrong, the safety call should have gotten the old "WTF" from the other officials on the field. That whole crew needs to be pulled and re-trained.

Penalty in end zone = safety. So a play starts from the offense's one-yard-line and a lineman that's protecting his quarterback commits holding in the end zone. That's a safety.

This official called intentional grounding on a quarterback that he apparently thought was in the end zone. Had he been in the end zone, it really would have been a legitimate safety.

I've seen officials blatantly NOT call safeties in runaway games when the losing team is just getting beaten up. "Get up kid and run out, so we can mark it at the two."

JohnAnnArbor:This official called intentional grounding on a quarterback that he apparently thought was in the end zone. Had he been in the end zone, it really would have been a legitimate safety.

Maybe the ref had already backed up so far he assumed they were in the end zone. I mean, dude DID run 20 yards backwards.

rugman11:Except that grounding is reviewable, at least to determine whether the ball crossed the line (I don't believe the pocket is reviewable).

They always show replays of it, but I don't think it's reviewable. Hell, no penalties are reviewable. Except now "targeting" penalties are reviewable (but only so they can't be ejected; even if it's overturned, the 15-yard penalty still stands).

IAmRight:rugman11: Except that grounding is reviewable, at least to determine whether the ball crossed the line (I don't believe the pocket is reviewable).

They always show replays of it, but I don't think it's reviewable. Hell, no penalties are reviewable. Except now "targeting" penalties are reviewable (but only so they can't be ejected; even if it's overturned, the 15-yard penalty still stands).

Some penalties are reviewable. Illegal Forward Pass is reviewable (whether the QB is behind or past the line of scrimmage). Pass Interference is reviewable (at least if the ball may have been tipped before the interference). 12 men on the field is reviewable.

It just seems strange to me that the spot where a QB throws the ball is reviewable on an Illegal Forward Pass penalty but not on an Intentional Grounding penalty.